Reading the Facebook post by Representative Jeremy Munson, captured in the screengrab above, on Monday morning, made us concerned about the Lake Crystal, Minnesota, New House Republican Caucus member's well-being.
It's not just that we had received a copy of the draft language of the bill (here) and embed below, but we were pretty certain that the Minnesota House Health and Human Services Finance Division, of which Representative Munson is a member, had met since last spring when the last omnibus bill passed.
Sure, the last Division Report is HF 400 HHSF Division Report 2-28-2019, posted on March 1, 2019, and the last committee document posted is Long-Term Care Referral Memo 3.25.19 - Posted: 3/27/2019.
But the minutes for the division tell a different story. We find minutes for seven division meetings since the last omnibus bill was passed:
- FORTY-SEVENTH MEETING - 2/26/2020
- FORTY-SIXTH MEETING - 2/20/2020
- FORTY-FIFTH MEETING - 2/19/2020
- FORTY-FOURTH MEETING - 2/18/2020
- FORTY-THIRD MEETING - 2/13/2020
- FORTY-SECOND MEETING - 12/2/2019
- FORTY-FIRST MEETING - 9/26/2019
When we checked the minutes of each one, we read that Representative Munson was present at each of these meetings, so his statement is baffling. Could it be a stress reaction from sheltering in place? A stressed staffer who failed to scroll past the document sections?
Given the high profile of the issues discussed in several of the meetings--the cost of insulin and child care--we're surprised Munson or the caucus staff could forget them.
Update April 7: In LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FROM REP. JEREMY MUNSON - DISTRICT 23-B - (Monday, February 24, 2020) Munson wrote:
The HHS Finance Division held a committee hearing for the emergency insulin bill on Tuesday. This bill was originally set to cost $10.4 million a year and only included those without insurance. It has since grown to include 70% of all patients, even those with insurance and nearly quadrupled in cost to $38 million a year. . . .
You can find my comments during committee here: Rep. Munson on the Emergency Insulin Bill in HHS Finance.
Yes, that's a link to a YouTube of him speaking to a meeting that he now claims never happened. [end update]
Perhaps by "omnibus bill" he meant when the House lawmakers OK $330 million in measures taking aim at pandemic's impact He and his three fellow New House Republicans were the only lawmakers in both chambers to vote against that relief.
We're not that close but we wish them all good health and spirits.
Representative Munson didn't say what legislation is being taken up, though we received an email yesterday as a member of the media about an omission in that legislation that drew quick calls for action, along with the copy of the draft bill language.
We're waiting for a call back to learn when members of the legislature received their copies of the bill.
Within minutes today, the Star Tribune's Torey Van Oot reported in Minnesota poised to expand workers' comp for coronavirus-stricken first responders:
Minnesota lawmakers are set to pass legislation Tuesday expanding workers’ compensation benefits for police, health workers and other first responders who contract COVID-19.
The proposal, which has support of leaders in both parties, would allow front-line workers who are at high risk of contracting the coronavirus to qualify for benefits that cover job-related medical expenses and illness if they receive a positive COVID-19 lab test or diagnosis.
Firefighters, paramedics, police, nurses, doctors, long-term care workers, correctional officers and people providing child care to emergency responders are all covered by the bill.
The agreement follows weeks of lobbying from first responders, who said that without the change, such workers would have to prove to employers that they contracted the disease on the job.
“We would have to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that we contracted it from a patient,” Chris Parsons, a St. Paul fire captain who serves as president of the Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters union, previously told The Star Tribune. “That’s going to be impossible for us.”
Efforts to include a similar change in a $330-million COVID-19 response package approved by the Legislature in late March fell short following opposition from some business groups and Senate Republicans. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-East Gull Lake, said he wanted any modification to the law to have full support from the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council, which is made up of representatives from both business and labor. Lawmakers said Monday that the agreement has backing from both sides. . . .
Read the rest at the Strib. We're curious if those leaders in the first responder community or the business community were those to whom Munson was wanting out of the process in this exchange on his Facebook post:
More of that backstory of lobbying: Chao Xiong reported in the Star Tribune article, First responders urge Minnesota lawmakers to ease path to workers' compensation for those with COVID-19:
First responders and emergency workers are urging Minnesota lawmakers to ease their ability to obtain workers’ compensation should they contract COVID-19.
A bill before lawmakers would encompass firefighters, paramedics, police, nurses, doctors and people providing child care to emergency responders, among several others whose jobs put them at particular risk of contracting the disease that had infected 689 and killed 17 Minnesotans as of Wednesday.
“It’s very important, because first responders, nurses, other folks that we have included in this bill, we are going to be working directly with populations that are susceptible to COVID-19, or, already have COVID-19,” said St. Paul fire Capt. Chris Parsons, who spearheaded the effort. “We are going to be put at a greater risk than the general public [for] contracting this illness.”
The measure would smooth an employee’s path toward obtaining workers’ compensation for medical expenses and other costs related to a COVID-19 infection by shifting the burden of proof from the employee to the employer.
Without the bill, employees would have to prove to employers that they contracted the disease from a specific patient while on the job. Under the bill, an infection would be presumed to be work-related, and employers seeking to deny workers’ compensation would have to disprove that employees contracted the disease while working.
Parsons, president of the Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters union, said it would be difficult for emergency workers to pinpoint the exact moment of infection given the number of people they come in contact with.
“We would have to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that we contracted it from a patient,” he said about the usual workers’ compensation standards. “That’s going to be impossible for us.”
Parsons first wrote Gov. Tim Walz and lawmakers in mid-March pleading with them to enact workers’ compensation protections for emergency workers after hearing firsthand from a firefighter from Washington state, where one-third of a fire department was quarantined after exposure.
There are about 2,000 professional firefighters and 20,000 volunteer, on-call firefighters working in just under 800 fire departments across Minnesota.
While he has not heard of firefighters in Minnesota testing positive for COVID-19, Parsons said some firefighters in St. Paul, Minneapolis and other departments have been or are being quarantined.
“We’re still early in this thing,” Parsons said. “Imagine where this is going to be in two weeks.”
Two St. Paul police officers are now off work with confirmed cases of the virus, marking the first known law enforcement officers in the state to contract it, along with a Department of Corrections officer. So far, no Minneapolis police officers have tested positive.
Lawmakers sent Walz a letter this week urging him to issue an executive order to create a “workers’ comp presumption” for first responders. He kicked it back to legislators, who did not roll it into a $330 million emergency coronavirus aid package passed last Thursday. . . .
We're not sure why Munson wants to fall on his sword with this one. Will the splinter caucus be voting against this one?
We also hope he updates his post informing his followers what the session is about, as some of them are very afraid of the things they imagine the House may pass. We posted a link to the bill draft hoping that they would not be so fearful. Surely that fear wasn't Munson's purpose in his post--we think it was concern about process--but he should act responsibly.
Here's a screengrab of sample comments--all so far from the actual matter at hand in Tuesday's session:
Here's a copy of the draft bill language:
First Responders Workers Comp posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd
Screengrab: Munson's post.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments